girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:2011-04-22 (Friday)
Discussion for comic for . ---- Well, to give him a little credit, he wasn't lying to Violetta about setting the place on fire. As for what he says about the Baron's Peace, I could see his point of view. Not that it's completely right, but I could see how a noble would see that. Donovan Ravenhull 05:30, April 22, 2011 (UTC) Category:Page-by-Page I think this nicely boils down the tension between the two young men. Gil is an idealist, Tarvek is a Cynic. Arguably, the Baron is a Cynic as well, which arguably makes Tarvek more of a intellectual child of the Baron than Gil is. However to keep things balanced, Gil is not the biggest idealist in the story, that would be Othar. Naraht 14:43, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :Othar thinks that because SOME sparks have screwed up the world, ALL sparks are irredeemable and must be killed. Is that idealism? Mskala 15:09, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Yes it is, just because we don't agree with his ideal, doesn't mean that he isn't idealist. Remember, he is so pure in his beliefs that he believes that after he has killed every other spark in the world, he can kill himself (since he is a spark, or so he thinks, have we seen proof?) ::: I respectfully disagree. I think idealism implies optimism; it's not just commitment to *some* set of beliefs, but commitment to an *optimistic* (and usually, excessively so) set of beliefs. Othar's beliefs are optimistic in that he thinks getting rid of the sparks would be enough to solve the problem he sees, but I don't think he's anywhere near as idealistic as Gil. The assumption that many people are incapable of being redeemed except by death is pretty much completely incompatible with idealism. Mskala 15:54, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :::: (In return respectfully) I think that since we disagree on what constitutes idealism, that we disagree on what Othar is, and since we are working from different definitions, we'll come to different conclusions. I would like to see Othar and Tarvek interact at some point though. Having read this, I am struck with a sudden new respect for diplomats that I lacked before now. I once thought them to be mere professional liars. I saw them as a cross between politicians and used car salesmen, but now I see things differently. It is amazingly easy to start a fight. Breathtakingly simple to start a war. -- Billy Catringer 16:54, April 23, 2011 (UTC) : Thank you.Naraht 18:32, April 23, 2011 (UTC) : You are welcome. -- Billy Catringer 00:12, April 25, 2011 (UTC) The analogy between Klaus and Tarvek goes further when you consider that Klaus played the role of Chump. Tarvek don't get no respect either. Right now I am a bit disappointed in Gil's ragging on Tarvek. This seems contrary to Gil's usual nature. I am wondering what Tarvek left out of his Castle Wulfenbach story? --Rej ¤¤? 19:31, April 23, 2011 (UTC) :It's amazing how much a person's attitude changes when they are dealing with a romantic rival. Donovan Ravenhull 01:33, April 24, 2011 (UTC) :They are friends, nevertheless. The Baron must have told Gil something about Tarvek in private that angered Gil. Tarvek clearly did not want to be sent home, nor did he know who Gil really was. We do not know what actually happened in Paris while the two of them were there. That is probably a novel in its own right. At any rate, I'm gonna bear with this story until I find out what happened and why. -- Billy Catringer 00:12, April 25, 2011 (UTC)